No class has yet been certified in the above action. Until aclass is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless youretain one. If you purchased Motorola common stock during the perioddescribed above, you have certain rights, and have until no later than60 days, in which to move for Lead Plaintiff status. Any member of thepurported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff throughcounsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain anabsent class member.

To be a member of the class you need not take any action atthis time, and you may retain counsel of your choice. If you wish todiscuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice oryour rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contactTali Leger, Director of Shareholder Relations at The Brualdi Law Firm,29 Broadway, Suite 2400, New York, New York 10006, by telephone tollfree at (877) 495-1877 or (212) 952-0602, by email totleger@brualdilawfirm.com or visit our website athttp://www.brualdilawfirm.com/

The complaint charges Motorola and certain of its officers anddirectors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.Motorola builds, markets and sells products, services and applicationsthat make connections to people, information and entertainment throughbroadband, embedded systems and wireless networks.

The complaint alleges that in the summer of 2006, Motorola'spoor financial performance had depressed its stock price to below $19per share. In order to artificially inflate the price of Motorolastock, defendants began a series of false and misleading statementsregarding the Company's business and prospects. Specifically,defendants repeatedly told investors to expect strong growth in salesand revenues. On October 17, 2006, defendants announced that Motorolahad failed to meet its revenue and sales projections. As a result ofthis announcement, Motorola's stock price declined over 7% in twotrading days. Then on January 4, 2007, defendants announced thatMotorola's fourth quarter 2006 results also failed to meetexpectations. This time, the Company's stock price declined almost 8%.

CONTACT:  The Brualdi Law Firm

          Tali Leger, Director of Shareholder Relations

          (877) 495-1877

          (212) 952-0602

          tleger@brualdilawfirm.com

          http://www.brualdilawfirm.com/

The appeals court also set aside a part of the lower court's order, saying the way it was worded "could be construed to prohibit the unfavorable comparison of even Time Warner Cable's analog programming."

Analog programming refers to basic cable packages, as opposed to digital packages that allow expanded programming and additional features such as high definition (HD) or video on demand.

The television ads, which featured ex-Star Trek actor William Shatner and pop star Jessica Simpson, aired last December and in January. They ended with the tag line: "For an HD picture that can't be beat, get DirecTV."

Time Warner Cable filed the lawsuit in December, accusing DirecTV of false advertising and deceptive business practices.

In February, Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York granted a preliminary injunction against DirecTV preventing it from running ads in Time Warner Cable's markets that disparaged the quality of Time Warner's high-definition programming.

DirecTV was also ordered then to take down any similar advertisements on its Web site, or other sites.

The Internet ads include one in which the picture quality of DirecTV is compared with that of "other TV," which the ad later identifies as representing basic cable, according to the appellate court ruling.

The DirecTV side of the screen shows a clear image of football player Kevin Dyson making a touchdown at the Super Bowl, while the image on the "other TV" side is blurry, according to the ruling.

"It is difficult to imagine that any consumer, whatever the level of sophistication, would actually be fooled by the Internet advertisements into thinking that cable's picture quality is so poor that the image is 'nearly entirely obscured,'" the court ruled.

Facing successive 15-minute interviews by gay rights advocates in Los Angeles last night, Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all vowed to battle for gay, lesbian and transgender rights. But they stopped short of endorsing gay marriage - a hot-button culture-war issue that could alienate millions of independents and religious conservatives.

Etheridge, who announced she was a lesbian shortly after Bill Clinton was inaugurated in 1993, expressed bitterness at his inability to pass gay rights measures he promised during the campaign.

"It was a very hopeful time," she said. "But in the years that followed, our hearts were broken, we were thrown under the bus, we were pushed aside. All of those great promises ... were broken."

Clinton, who had been warmly received by the studio audience, seemed surprised by Etheridge's comments.

"Obviously, Melissa, I didn't see it quite the way you describe it," she said. " ... We didn't get as much done as I would have liked, but I believe there was a lot of honest effort going on."

The candidates appeared in the order they accepted the invitation from the LOGO cable network and Human Rights Campaign, with Obama first - and Clinton last.

"This forum is a real measure of how far we've come as a community, but there are many of us in our community who'd like to see the candidates come farther on gay marriage," said Fred Hochberg, dean of the Milano urban policy institute at New School University, one of Clinton's highest-profile gay supporters.

Suffolk Legis. Jon Cooper, a supporter of Obama who attended the forum, echoed those sentiments, saying, "Although I would love them to come out in support of same sex civil marriage, it's not going to happen right now ... "

The forum underscored the gay paradox in the Democratic Party: The candidates support gay rights but are wary of alienating party conservatives and religious blacks in the South.

Earlier this year, Clinton and Obama angered Human Rights Campaign leaders by refusing to immediately and forcefully rebuke a general's claim that homosexuality was "immoral." They later released statements indicating their disagreement.

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel were the only Democrats who have expressed support for gay marriage. Sens. Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd, who oppose same-sex marriage, declined the invitation, as did all Republican candidates, including Rudy Giuliani, who supports some gay rights.

All the Democrats in attendance pledged to back broad new anti-discrimination statutes, want to scrap Bill Clinton's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the military, and believe in civil unions that allow same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"I'm going to be more sympathetic not because I'm black, I'm going to be more sympathetic because this is the cause of my life," Obama said.

Panelist Jonathan Capehart challenged Obama on his opposition to gay marriage, saying his position was "old school." Obama used the remark to point out he'd been the first candidate to accept LOGO's invitation. "There's a reason why I was here first," he said.

Etheridge challenged John Edwards on his recent comments suggesting he was opposed to same-sex marriage based on his religious convictions.

"I have heard in the past that you felt uncomfortable among gay people," she said. Edwards denied her assertion but offered an apology for linking gay issues and Christianity.

"I shouldn't have said that," he said. "I believe to my core in equality ... I will not impose my faith belief on the American people."

Gay activists react

"I was thinking 'When will they get it that equal means equal?' Senator Obama was talking about how he wanted to extend all rights of marriage to people through civil union. But laws are defined by marriage. Laws are not defined by civil union. We've learned that through New Jersey."

- David Kilmnick, executive director of Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth

"I appreciated John Edwards speaking about the homeless teenagers in the L.A. community center. That was something that people didn't talk about yet and it's very important - people getting thrown out of the house because they're gay."

- Lauren Van Kirk, treasurer of the Stonewall Democrats of Suffolk County

"My family comes from the South, so I understand where he's [Obama's] coming from. But between him and Edwards, both of them fall short. They still fall short of calling it marriage. ... Civil union: it's second-class citizenship."

- Sheila Marino-Thomas, data entry worker for Marriage Equality New York, who has been with her partner for 14 years

"It sounded like she [Clinton] was handing the responsibility for moving the ball forward - fighting - and she said 'well, you guys in the human rights campaign are doing the right thing,' as if to say we can't be doing that in the political realm. It's an easier thing to say, rather than saying I'm going to take up that struggle."

Attorneys representing the students had hoped that if they won in court, tuition would be lowered to pre-2003 levels, when in-state tuition and fees for undergraduates averaged about $2,500 a year. Undergraduate in-state tuition and fees for the coming school year averages up to $4,949. advertisement 

Tucson attorney Paul Gattone, who represents the students, said he was disappointed in the ruling. He worries that students from middle-income families will be hurt the most by rising tuition because they aren't eligible for as much financial aid as students from lower-income families.

"Certainly we can assume tuition rates are not going to go down any time soon, and they probably will continue to climb," he said. He has not decided whether he will ask the court to reconsider the decision.

The state Board of Regents has contended Arizona's tuition is low in comparison to many state universities. The regents have kept tuition and fees in the lower one-third of a sample of 50 public U.S. universities. The average tuition and fees at those universities is $6,635 a year, according to a regents survey.

Bruce Johnson, the Noels' current attorney, told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that his clients were "very disappointed."

"We were surprised by the ruling, and we believe it was incorrect," Johnson said to the newspaper.

A telephone message left by The Associated Press at Schlesinger's office and with the attorney representing the firm, Bruce Rogow, was not immediately returned after hours Thursday.

Noel was left paralyzed from the waist down at 6 months old following surgery at a state clinic in 1999. Now 19, she suffers from spina bifida, a congenital defect in which the spinal column fails to close properly.

A Broward jury awarded $8.5 million to the Noels, but state law limits such payments to $200,000 without legislative approval. Lawmakers finally passed the claims bill this year after several failed attempts.

Schlesinger filed a lien asking for more money than the legislation allocated to the firm.

Last month, Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink argued the Circuit Court in Fort Lauderdale lacks jurisdiction on the case. A telephone message and an e-mail left after hours by AP for Sink was not immediately returned.

Noel and her family lived in Broward County when the surgery took place but have since moved to Brevard County, where she is attending college.